Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I based my response upon the survey at the beginning of your thread. Sorry, I didn't realize we were being speculative.

Ah should of read on, a lot of people made that assumption for some odd reason. They thought I was trying to propose the Drake equation as scientific.

Isn't the scientific method all about experimental proof? Otherwise, it remains conjecture.
If you are referring to any claims that I have made either in the past or present, remember mine are based on a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and not on theory alone.

Of course but this is scepticism and debunking not the astrophysics or cosmology section. Which means within reason speculation is allowed without scientific method, all we're talking about here is the possibility of life existing, not the certainty, I see no problem with that, provided we don't start making assumptions. Which incidentally I'm afraid is what CEL is doing, thus I can't agree with what he is saying without saying but what if... For all we know the universe is only 5 billion years old. For all we know our galaxy is only 4 billion years old. I don't think you can make the sort of assumptions he is without speculating completely. Therefore although I agree with him in principle, I keep saying only if. Because oddly and ironically a hypothesis in this area begs more questions than a theory. And the answers are a bit well let's say grey to say the least. I wouldn't presume to know what conditions are like, whether we are alone in the the 90 or so light year area since we started broadcasting radio waves into space. I wouldn't presume to make a speculation saying that life is sparse. Or that technological systems will often wipe themselves out and are short lived. Although I'd certainly respect someones opinions. As this isn't a thread about scientifically valid theories, more scientifically valid hypothesis.

I think the point is, there could be literally hundreds of thousands of civilisations in the Milky Way that are well aware of us, but like in Star Trek they are awaiting the moment we are ready to be contacted, or like in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy we are mostly harmless and of little consideration. Thus I say given your tenets I agree, I just don't necessarily agree with your tenets at least not within any certainty.

And what I mean CEL is before you apply the drake equation you apply the moron factor sub equation to the lifespan of intelligent life's civilisation. So as to adjust for crazy loons before you start.

 

[RetardedBastard]

(Please excuse me if the issue I'm about to bring up has infact already been brought up -- the thread is simply too long to go through)

Intelligent species that the Earth has created so far have shown that they don't have what it takes to compete in the evolutionary battlefield (with one possible exception of the evolutionary young species H. sapien).
- Neanderthals, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, and some other hominid species were evolutionary deadends, despite being some of the most intelligent species the Earth could muster up to that time.
- Even the hominid lineage that end up surviving till today, in their history, have teetered on the verge of extinction throughout their lifetime. One volcanic eruption here, one virulent disease there, and it's not too difficult to imagine the ancestors of modern man never having made it far enough to spawn us big brained humans.
- Evolutionarly speaking, how usefull is the ability to speak sign language and clearly demostrate intellect? Today our closest intellectual cousins — the Apes — are among our most endangered species.

In the history of life on Earth, only one intelligent (capable of space communication) species spawned out of those billions that seems to have the ability to climb the evolutionary ladder. The rest fell into the dust bins of history.

So, the way I see it, the probability that humans will encounter another lifeform in our galaxy that is also capable of spawing the technology that is used to establish communication with us (whether the communication be intentional, or not -- signal leakage) is, satistically speaking, EXTREMELY low due to (to paraphase what I said above) the evolutionary battle against higher intelligence. However, I do think that given how relatively quickly life on Earth arose, primitive-celled-creatures are probably much more common place in the galaxy.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well to be honest the same extinctions that wipe out 90% of life are necessary to our evolution at least, to produce intelligent life. After all if the dinosaurs hadn't of been wiped out, those little rat like mammals would never have become the dominant life form on this planet. Although saying that little rat like mammals is quite a good analogy of the human race really. I'd say again though that you're assuming evolution would commonly progress like it does on Earth. When in fact our method of evolution could be either extremely unlikely or commonplace, and still not present a contradiction either way. And no as the Reichsmarschall of this thread unter das Fuhrer Ivan Seeking, that subject has not been raised at least not in that precise way.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Why on Earth are humans the only species with high intelliegence? Why are we not co-inhabiting the planet with another equally intelligent Octopi civilization, for instance? Why are intelligent species so umcommon given how large the number of species are currently living/have-lived on Earth? Why are our closest intelligent cousins teeteing on the endangered spcies list? Could it just be because evolutionaryly speaking, intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be? Sure, lions are smart and they're the kings of their land, and crows can use primitive tools, and octopi can open jars. But let's see them get any smarter... as smart as say a chimp. Their intellectual capacity suits them just fine now, but with a higher intellectual capacity, it could very well select those animals to beomce evolutionary dead enders too, or atleast dwindle in number, based on what we can say about the history of intelligence evolution on Earth. (see my previous post for about that fruitless history)

I'd say again though that you're assuming evolution would commonly progress like it does on Earth. When in fact our method of evolution could be either extremely unlikely or commonplace, and still not present a contradiction either way.

You're right in that laws of evolution of life on Earth could just be a small subset of a larger form of biological evolution that is taking place elsewhere and reshuffling species with radically different conserquences than on Earth. Nonetheless, Earth is the only place in the entire universe where can see concerte exmaples of evolution; therefore, we must use the evolutionary template of Earth if we are to make generalizations of lifeforms (intelligent or otherwise) in other places, until we have a reason not to.

 

[pinestone]

Ah should of read on, a lot of people made that assumption for some odd reason. They thought I was trying to propose the Drake equation as scientific.
Of course but this is scepticism and debunking not the astrophysics or cosmology section. Which means within reason speculation is allowed without scientific method, all we're talking about here is the possibility of life existing, not the certainty, I see no problem with that, provided we don't start making assumptions. Which incidentally I'm afraid is what CEL is doing, thus I can't agree with what he is saying without saying but what if... For all we know the universe is only 5 billion years old. For all we know our galaxy is only 4 billion years old. I don't think you can make the sort of assumptions he is without speculating completely. Therefore although I agree with him in principle, I keep saying only if. Because oddly and ironically a hypothesis in this area begs more questions than a theory. And the answers are a bit well let's say grey to say the least. I wouldn't presume to know what conditions are like, whether we are alone in the the 90 or so light year area since we started broadcasting radio waves into space. I wouldn't presume to make a speculation saying that life is sparse. Or that technological systems will often wipe themselves out and are short lived. Although I'd certainly respect someones opinions. As this isn't a thread about scientifically valid theories, more scientifically valid hypothesis.

I think the point is, there could be literally hundreds of thousands of civilisations in the Milky Way that are well aware of us, but like in Star Trek they are awaiting the moment we are ready to be contacted, or like in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy we are mostly harmless and of little consideration. Thus I say given your tenets I agree, I just don't necessarily agree with your tenets at least not within any certainty.

And what I mean CEL is before you apply the drake equation you apply the moron factor sub equation to the lifespan of intelligent life's civilisation. So as to adjust for crazy loons before you start.

Point well taken.

If I were to make a conjecture based upon planetary-type objects that have been recently discovered throughout our known universe, it's quite likely there are other lifeforms in existence. And, while I am 'playing the odds', it seems reasonable that some form of life has, by whatever means, made it through our atmosphere and on to our planet.
Furthermore, given the manor in which we humans consume Earth's resources and generally destroy the planet we inhabit, it makes me wonder if we are not the 'aliens' from 'outer space' we seek, and it is we that have traveled here from somewhere else.

ie. A nonindigenous, invading species that has spread like a virus upon this Earth.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Furthermore, given the manor in which we humans consume Earth's resources and generally destroy the planet we inhabit, it makes me wonder if we are not the 'aliens' from 'outer space' we seek, and it is we that have traveled here from somewhere else.

ie. A nonindigenous, invading species that has spread like a virus upon this Earth.

I don't know if what you said above was meant as a metaphore or should be taken literally. I'll choose the second one for the sake of argument. Humans cannot be the aliens from space invading a host planet (unless ALL life on Earth is also part of this alien lineage) because of the ridiculously similar genetic code/molecular machinery that we share with the rest of the life here on Earth, including primitive bacterium. This points to a common universal ancestor for all life on Earth.

 

[pinestone]

I don't know if what you said above was meant as a metaphore or should be taken literally. I'll choose the second one for the sake of argument. Humans cannot be the aliens from space invading a host planet (unless ALL life on Earth is also part of this alien lineage) because of the ridiculously similar genetic code/molecular machinery that we share with the rest of the life here on Earth, including primitive bacterium. This points to a common universal ancestor for all life on Earth.

Well, since this is all based upon conjecture, who's to say there's not a common universal ancestor for all life in the known universe? The key word here being 'universal'...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, since this is all based upon conjecture, who's to say there's not a common universal ancestor for all life in the known universe? The key word here being 'universal'...

Well nothing but I'm sure you can see just how broad the application of this topic is. So if you read the thread you'd see about 100 different "theories" and even theories from almost every discipline being discussed, I don't think that the conjectural nature of this thread makes it any less interesting or any more valid than a thread in cosmology given the provisos of the OP.

Panspermia (all life originating from space) was discussed as little as a page ago, Unispermia has never been discussed, well done for being original.

 

[pinestone]

Well nothing but I'm sure you can see just how broad the application of this topic is. So if you read the thread you'd see about 100 different "theories" and even theories from almost every discipline being discussed, I don't think that the conjectural nature of this thread makes it any less interesting or any more valid than a thread in cosmology given the provisos of the OP.

Panspermia (all life originating from space) was discussed as little as a page ago, Unispermia has never been discussed, well done for being original.

A quick google search reveals two hits on the subject of Unispermia.
This has indeed turned into an interesting discussion.
At least I'm not alone with my logic

 

[RetardedBastard]

A quick google search reveals two hits on the subject of Unispermia.
This has indeed turned into an interesting discussion.
At least I'm not alone with my logic

Actually, there are 3 hits on google using keyword "Unispermia". Turns out one of the hits just happens to be schrodinger's very usage of the word on THIS page! LOL. That was a rather quick indexing of this thread by google (on the order of minutes), if I may say so.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I can't say I'm that surprised, as I thought I made the term up.

Also a quick check reveals they are talking about the species B.Unisperma. Not unispermia, so I guess I just coined a term, sort of. I'd feel better about calling it Universal panspermia maybe?

 

[CEL]

... Which incidentally I'm afraid is what CEL is doing, thus I can't agree with what he is saying without saying but what if... For all we know the universe is only 5 billion years old. For all we know our galaxy is only 4 billion years old. I don't think you can make the sort of assumptions he is without speculating completely. ...

Where did you get 5 billion years for the Universe and 4 billion for our galaxy?
As far as I know, the Universe is estimated to be from 13.5 to 14.5 years old and our galaxy was formed at the same time of all the others.
Our solar system, including Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Sol is a third or fourth generation star, that is why there are rocky planets orbiting it, but other such stars may be several billion years older.
And all my assumptions are based on probabilities, not certainties. For all we know, there could be a technological civilization in a planet orbiting a nearby star, only the inhabitants of the planet are not interested in communicating with other intelligent beings, so we are not aware of their existence. Possible? Yes. Probable? I don't think so. But it is only an opinion, not a scientific truth.

 

[mikelepore]

Why on Earth are humans the only species with high intelliegence? Why are we not co-inhabiting the planet with another equally intelligent Octopi civilization, for instance?

I suspect the answer to that is: To evolve superior intelligence, a species must have the bad luck that only those who find new ways to solve problems will survive, and, at the same time, the good luck that some of them actually do solve those problems. Our ancestors probably found themselves in a situation where only those who picked up sticks, stones, fire, etc. and did some original things with them would eat and not get eaten, and they also had the manual dexterity to achieve those activities. If it's too easy for the octopi to find something to eat, or if they don't need shelter from environmental dangers, of if they don't find a survival advantage in grabbing objects and manipulating them, and also creatively changing how they manipulate those objects, then they will not become very intelligent. An animal has to be required to work for a living, and continuously change how it does it, as the only way to avoid danger, in order to evolve abstract reasoning. Engels, collaborator of Karl Marx, cited this as "the part played by labor in the transition from ape to man."

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Where did you get 5 billion years for the Universe and 4 billion for our galaxy?
As far as I know, the Universe is estimated to be from 13.5 to 14.5 years old and our galaxy was formed at the same time of all the others.
Our solar system, including Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Sol is a third or fourth generation star, that is why there are rocky planets orbiting it, but other such stars may be several billion years older.
And all my assumptions are based on probabilities, not certainties. For all we know, there could be a technological civilization in a planet orbiting a nearby star, only the inhabitants of the planet are not interested in communicating with other intelligent beings, so we are not aware of their existence. Possible? Yes. Probable? I don't think so. But it is only an opinion, not a scientific truth.

And who said that the age of the Universe is not falsifiable? Or view of the Universe is totally skew by poor and faulty physics. That's what I mean by I agree but with reservations. Although your view sounds very defeatist, and pessimistic.

 

[CEL]

And who said that the age of the Universe is not falsifiable? Or view of the Universe is totally skew by poor and faulty physics. That's what I mean by I agree but with reservations. Although your view sounds very defeatist, and pessimistic.

Falsifiability is, according to Karl Popper, one of the requisites for a theory to be considered scientific. But being falsifiable does not mean that a theory is false.
The latest measurements suggest that the observable universe is no less then 13.73 years old. If you think it is younger you must present observations that support your theory.
Besides the age of the Earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years. If the universe was only 5 billion years old, there would be no time for the matter in the core of supernovas to have spread to a corner of the galaxy in order to build rocky planets.
And I am not defeatist or pessimistic, I am realistic.

 

[CEL]

Why on Earth are humans the only species with high intelliegence? Why are we not co-inhabiting the planet with another equally intelligent Octopi civilization, for instance? ...

I don't think that two intelligent species could coexist in a planet. Intelligence leads to dominance and if two species looked for dominance of the planet, there would be fight and one or both would be destroyed.
Maybe that is what happened with the Neanderthals. They competed with homo sapiens for the dwindling resources of the earth, during an ice age and lost the fight against the bigger intellect of their younger cousins.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Falsifiability is, according to Karl Popper, one of the requisites for a theory to be considered scientific. But being falsifiable does not mean that a theory is false.
The latest measurements suggest that the observable universe is no less then 13.73 years old. If you think it is younger you must present observations that support your theory.
Besides the age of the Earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years. If the universe was only 5 billion years old, there would be no time for the matter in the core of supernovas to have spread to a corner of the galaxy in order to build rocky planets.
And I am not defeatist or pessimistic, I am realistic.

I don't think so, I think you only consider the problem from your all too human perspective and it colours your objectivity . I never said the Universe was 5 billion years old, I just said it's possible. I think so far your logic is fine, if not making one to many thousand assumptions. Which is why I said I agree with the obvious reservations.

 

[RetardedBastard]

I never said the Universe was 5 billion years old, I just said it's possible. I think so far your logic is fine, if not making one to many thousand assumptions. Which is why I said I agree with the obvious reservations.

Sorry dawg, I just don't see what useful purpose it would serve to introduce the ridiculous possibility that our scientific estimate of the age of the universe is off by almost 3 times. I mean, is this thread not already filled with enough extrapolations that we now have to throw away standard cosmology? I think as a basis to make further extrapolations on this topic of extraterrestrial biological intelligence, we should at least start by accepting standard science.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Well, since this is all based upon conjecture, who's to say there's not a common universal ancestor for all life in the known universe? The key word here being 'universal'...

I don't follow... Even if we start by assuming that there are many other forms of life out there, is there a common universal ancestor (CUA) for all life on this galaxy? Perhaps. But the whole known universe? If by the "known universe" you mean the observable universe, then I doubt it -- I don't see how a CUA would have had enough time to transverse the diameter of the known universe spawning new life on hositable places.

 

[Moonbear]

Why on Earth are humans the only species with high intelliegence? Why are we not co-inhabiting the planet with another equally intelligent Octopi civilization, for instance? Why are intelligent species so umcommon given how large the number of species are currently living/have-lived on Earth? Why are our closest intelligent cousins teeteing on the endangered spcies list? Could it just be because evolutionaryly speaking, intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be? Sure, lions are smart and they're the kings of their land, and crows can use primitive tools, and octopi can open jars. But let's see them get any smarter... as smart as say a chimp. Their intellectual capacity suits them just fine now, but with a higher intellectual capacity, it could very well select those animals to beomce evolutionary dead enders too, or atleast dwindle in number, based on what we can say about the history of intelligence evolution on Earth. (see my previous post for about that fruitless history)

All the other species, in terms of evolutionary fitness, are intelligent enough...they can do what they need to do to survive.

That said, we really don't know if other species have had individuals or groups of individuals born with "intelligence genes" that were so unfit they never survived long enough to produce offspring and carry on that variant, or if more developed "intelligence" has simply never happened.

Another question you raise is maybe "intelligence isn't all its cracked up to be." It's a little difficult to sit back and look at humans objectively as we might any other animal, but we need to first consider what we call intelligence, and in particular, what we mean when we say "highly intelligent." On one hand, a lot of the "signs" of intelligence we use are not something we could even easily measure in other species without a way to communicate in their own "language." On the other hand, when we talk about someone who is "highly intelligent," we generally aren't talking about someone who has phenomenal survival skills (indeed, they may be highly dependent upon others for their survival needs...if the supply chain to their local grocery stores were cut off, would they have any ability to live off the land). The things we measure as signs of intelligence...mathematical ability, vocabulary, writing skills...these confer little to no advantage in terms of species survival. And, these big brains we have confer some distinct disadvantages for survival...big heads that give us trouble giving birth to our babies (without c-sections, a lot of mothers and infants would die in childbirth because the big-headed babies just don't fit through the opening meant for that purpose). The overly large cerebral hemispheres have twisted our brain into a very unusual shape compared to other species, and leaves the part controlling our most vital functions tucked down bent around the base in a way that leaves it very vulnerable to injury when we experience falls or big bumps to the head.

So, what does being a mathematical genius or prolific writer get you in evolutionary/selection advantages? Perhaps the same thing as a peacock's gorgeous tail...it may very well be a "luxury" item that we show off to attract mates, and if we can survive "in spite of" our big heads and brains and utilization of resources for intellectual exercises rather than other true survival needs, maybe that signals to us that the individual must be even more fit or more dominant than an individual who is "just" surviving, or who is very intelligent but otherwise unhealthy (i.e., the negative stereotype of the asthmatic, pimply-faced, scrawny, glasses-wearing nerd complaining he can never get a date).

(Though, I'm feeling like I'm writing rather philosophically at the moment.)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Sorry dawg, I just don't see what useful purpose it would serve to introduce the ridiculous possibility that our scientific estimate of the age of the universe is off by almost 3 times. I mean, is this thread not already filled with enough extrapolations that we now have to throw away standard cosmology? I think as a basis to make further extrapolations on this topic of extraterrestrial biological intelligence, we should at least start by accepting standard science.

Well ok fair enough but I wasn't trying to get people all hung up on very far out points, you'll notice I also think it's possible that aliens know we are there but couldn't care less about us and so on. Which means, that we have about 90 light years of a radius to have picked up an alien lifeform, which is a tiny radius of the overal circle of the galaxy, I mean absolutely minuscule, assuming we are even on the same wavelength or they want to be noticed. The point was to introduce a small amount of doubt, not really to go into the age of the Universe only being 5 billion years old. 8 Billion or 10 either way. It appears our galaxy is at least 11.7 billion years old or so. I am happy with that and the estimate of the Universe being 15 billion years or so old, but I am not 100% sure it is.

All the other species, in terms of evolutionary fitness, are intelligent enough...they can do what they need to do to survive.

That said, we really don't know if other species have had individuals or groups of individuals born with "intelligence genes" that were so unfit they never survived long enough to produce offspring and carry on that variant, or if more developed "intelligence" has simply never happened.

Arguably humans really don't need to be any smarter than they are, with the advent of computers we are smart enough.

Another question you raise is maybe "intelligence isn't all its cracked up to be." It's a little difficult to sit back and look at humans objectively as we might any other animal, but we need to first consider what we call intelligence, and in particular, what we mean when we say "highly intelligent." On one hand, a lot of the "signs" of intelligence we use are not something we could even easily measure in other species without a way to communicate in their own "language." On the other hand, when we talk about someone who is "highly intelligent," we generally aren't talking about someone who has phenomenal survival skills (indeed, they may be highly dependent upon others for their survival needs...if the supply chain to their local grocery stores were cut off, would they have any ability to live off the land). The things we measure as signs of intelligence...mathematical ability, vocabulary, writing skills...these confer little to no advantage in terms of species survival. And, these big brains we have confer some distinct disadvantages for survival...big heads that give us trouble giving birth to our babies (without c-sections, a lot of mothers and infants would die in childbirth because the big-headed babies just don't fit through the opening meant for that purpose). The overly large cerebral hemispheres have twisted our brain into a very unusual shape compared to other species, and leaves the part controlling our most vital functions tucked down bent around the base in a way that leaves it very vulnerable to injury when we experience falls or big bumps to the head.

Only if you're talking about intelligent communicating life.

So, what does being a mathematical genius or prolific writer get you in evolutionary/selection advantages? Perhaps the same thing as a peacock's gorgeous tail...it may very well be a "luxury" item that we show off to attract mates, and if we can survive "in spite of" our big heads and brains and utilization of resources for intellectual exercises rather than other true survival needs, maybe that signals to us that the individual must be even more fit or more dominant than an individual who is "just" surviving, or who is very intelligent but otherwise unhealthy (i.e., the negative stereotype of the asthmatic, pimply-faced, scrawny, glasses-wearing nerd complaining he can never get a date).

Tenure?

(Though, I'm feeling like I'm writing rather philosophically at the moment.)

I agree though, in theory we don't really have any idea how selectable intelligence is, or even if it's commonly selected. It could be that the percentage of life that develops intelligence is actually tiny. Which would mean communicating alien civilisations may be even more sparse than our most conservative estimates of intelligent alien civilisations capable of communicating. It could be even that we are the only race in the galaxy that is intelligent at this exact period in the galaxies history, although I find that unlikely it is a possibility.

 

[pinestone]

I don't follow... I don't see how a CUA would have had enough time to transverse the diameter of the known universe spawning new life on hositable places.

Well, this is pure conjecture, right? So we are only limited by our imaginations and our logic.

Time is relative to the observer according to Albert Einstein. If we remove the observer we remove the element of time, right?. Wouldn't it have been possible that the entire Universe could have existed in some state before the dawn of observing lifeforms? If so, the 'seeds' of life could have been planted throughout before our concept of time was ever noted and invented.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, that is not correct. Time is relative to the state of the observer as compared to that observed, but the passage of time exists whether we have observers or not. The relative state of the systems is what matters and not whether someone is observing.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, this is pure conjecture, right? So we are only limited by our imaginations and our logic.

Time is relative to the observer according to Albert Einstein. If we remove the observer we remove the element of time, right?. Wouldn't it have been possible that the entire Universe could have existed in some state before the dawn of observing lifeforms? If so, the 'seeds' of life could have been planted throughout before our concept of time was ever noted and invented.

Well up to a point, I'd prefer if people would at least make a logical argument based on real world science or at least some sort of viable prediction, than just speculate. Otherwise we might as well just say God did it, there's only one life form in the Universe, prove me wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, what was said was not true to a point. It was completely wrong.

If it were known that existence and all of the laws of physics are fundamentally observer dependent, that would be one thing, but that is a wildly unsupportable extropolation of ideas from QM and not an appropriate discussion for this forum.

 

[pinestone]

Well up to a point, I'd prefer if people would at least make a logical argument based on real world science or at least some sort of viable prediction, than just speculate. Otherwise we might as well just say God did it, there's only one life form in the Universe, prove me wrong.

I'll admit that I was reaching a little too far on my last comment just for the sake of argument. Yes, by all means let the discussion continue based on real world science and not solely on conjecture.

 

[pinestone]

No, what was said was not true to a point. It was completely wrong.

If it were known that existence and all of the laws of physics are fundamentally observer dependent, that would be one thing, but that is a wildly unsupportable extropolation of ideas from QM and not an appropriate discussion for this forum.

I thought 'anything goes' here in the lounge, but obviously that's not the case. In the future, I'll keep unsupportable ideas away from this forum. And, thanks for clarifying the issue of time for me. It was just a wild thought...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No problem, but it is certainly not true that anything goes here.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929

 

[RetardedBastard]

"There is a non-zero probability that advanced, intelligent lifeforms inhabit the cosmos. However, the likelihood that such 2 lifeforms have come across each other is incredibly remote, given the vast distances that separate them."

I guess most scientists would respond with something along this manner?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"There is a non-zero probability that advanced, intelligent lifeforms inhabit the cosmos. However, the likelihood that such 2 lifeforms have come across each other is incredibly remote, given the vast distances that separate them."

I guess most scientists would respond with something along this manner?

I think most would say that it is a near certainty that there is intelligent life out there...if we consider the entire cosmos. Remember that the Drake eqn only applies to our galaxy.

My question is this: How can we talk about the odds of two advanced races crossing paths when we can't calculate the odds that interstellar drive technologies are possible or practical?